I've just finished examining the Last Writings as well as the evolution of Balrogs through HoMe in general. The alteration of "Balrog" to "Demon" in Glorfindel II is certainly interesting, but it's quite hard to know what to make of it. This is the only place where such a change is found; but then references to Balrogs are sparse in the post-LotR writings and, as far as I can tell, this is the only reference later than 1960.

The point is that without any contemporary texts to help us out, it is nearly impossible to guess what the significance of the change was. Perhaps it is as Olorin suggests, and "Demon" was meant to represent a more general class of beings than "Balrog". Or perhaps it is exactly the opposite - perhaps he had decided to resolve the conflict between the old balrogs and the new by calling the newer, more powerful conception "Demons". Or perhaps he simply decided he liked the way "Demon" sounds better than "Balrog". I actually tend to think that Olorin's answer is slightly more likely, but the point is that we don't know what lay behind the change. Moreover, we don't have any idea what specific steps would have been taken to carry out the change. So, as intriguing as this emendation is, I think that we simply can't apply it.

I agree with Aiwendil. The solution to replace Balrogs with Demons based on the note mentioned by Olorin is tampting but we simply can't do it.
In addition to Aiwendils arguments, I will ad that in the text of FoG we have sometimes the Balrogs called demons, so that it is not so easeay to make that change consitant though out the text.

Aiwendil and esteemed project members. Are there any specific changes that need to be revised in this part of the FOG?
I need to read it again completely to point them out, I'm just trying to bring this out so that we can continue moving foward with the FOG project.

Aiwendil and esteemed project members. Are there any specific changes that need to be revised in this part of the FOG?

There's still at least one small issue hanging from my post of August 19 - a sentence involving Rog. I'll also have to look back over everything, but other than that I can't think of any further problems. But I may well be forgetting something.

Originally posted by Aiwendil
... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at those Balrogs and smote them grievously, for all they had whips of flame and claws of steel, and were in stature very great. They battered them into {nought} [retreat], {or} catching at their whips [and] wield[ing] these against them{,} {that they tore them even as they had aforetime torn the Gnomes}; and [that ]the {number of} Balrogs {that prished}[were defeated] was a marvel
and dread to the hosts of Morgoth[.]{, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.}
Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons [and monsters] that were about the city and ordered them thus: a number made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater company rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.

and

Quote:

Fearful too they were for that {slaughter} [victory of] Rog {had done amid} [against] the Balrogs, because of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.

I like those changes, how about you Findegil?

Quote:

. Bands of the Swallow and of the Arch of Heaven there fight bitterly amid the wreck or contest the walls to east and west with the foe; but even as Tuor comes nigh driving the Orcs, one of those brazen snakes heaves against the {western} [eastern] FG-A-09 wall and a great mass of it shakes and falls,

This was a change made by jallanite, can someone explain to me why western was changed to eastern?

I will post an updated version of this part in the Private Forum so that it can be looked at it with more detail.

Just a query-can anyone suggest what Tolkien entailed in his 'revision' to the duel between Glorfindel and the Balrog? (Presumably he was happy with the Ecthelion and Gothmog battle, though of course he was writing this during a essay on Glorfindel.)

__________________
“If I’m more of an influence on your son as a rapper then you are as a father then you've got to look at yourself as a parent” ~&gt;Ice Cube.

Yes, those were the spots I was referring to. But if no one objects to them, I guess we can consider them closed.

Quote:

This was a change made by jallanite, can someone explain to me why western was changed to eastern?

Curious. FG-A-09 is not among the original changes proposed by Jallanite (in "A Project: Revising the Fall of Gondolin"). I cannot figure out (nor recall) who added it and at what point.

But I think it may be good. For there has been a general reversal of directions, since in the old account the attack began from the south and in the new from the north.

Findegil:

Quote:

What kind of monsters are here intended?

This was part of my "Ambiguous Balrog" proposal, inserted so that the following sentence did not strictly imply anything about how many Balrogs there were. "Monsters" was intended to be vague - it could refer to Balrogs, demons of some other kind (if there is such a thing), wargs, trolls, or whatever else you want. I agree that it's a bit clumsy, but it's the best I could come up with.

The chief problem I see with something like "troops" is that it sounds like it refers to the forces of Morgoth in general. In the original meaning there was quite clearly a distinction between these "demons" (meaning Balrogs) and the ordinary troops. We retain that distinction (though altering its nature slightly) with "demons and monsters", which can again be thought of as distinct from the ordinary Orcish forces.

Inderjit:

I am equally puzzled by that note. It may very well have something to do with the accompanying change of "Balrog" to "Demon". If only he had left a scrap of a note explaining the change, we'd be able to do something with it. But alas, it's simply inscrutable as it stands.

I will repeat what I said unto the [monsters / trops]addition in the Mechanical Monsters thread:

Quote:

I didn't like "monsters" since that would mean Rog was fought down only by "demons and monsters". Demons refers normally to Balrogs and monsters to dragons. Since only a couple of Balrogs is left to us that would mean nearly only dragons would fight against Rog. Could we imaging a "greater company [of dragons] rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the {drakes}[serpents] and nearer to the gates"? I can't so what we need is some kind of normal infantry. That normally are Orks, but I wanted to be more ambiguous here.

As I said before "bands" would also fit. I can see your point Aiwendil, that Rog was in the original fought down by a special force and that you whish to stick to that, but I can't see how we could manage that with out cerating an incerbible picture like a host of dragons rushing up the coils of the iron beats.

But I still think it's important to the sense of the passage to suggest (though not explicitly state) that the forces involved are not mere Orcs.

"Troops" does not quite convey the proper meaning.

"Bands" sounds a bit awkward to me.

But I suppose one of them might do, if nothing better comes up.

Incidentally, if "monsters" is a problem here, it must also be a problem in the other place I used it in the ambiguous Balrog revision - which was, confusingly enough FG-B-04 in the original but has become FG-B-05 in this thread. It ought simply to be deleted there, I suppose.

The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

The trouble with all of them (and most particularly with "mass" or "multitude") is that they do not retain the implication that these entities are not just the ordinary Orcish soldiers.

"Horde" has a nice kind of savage sound that I find appealing - but of course that matters not a whit. Did Tolkien ever use the word?

Alas, the need to replace "monsters" arises soley because we're not dealing with dragons.

"Forces" is possibly the best candidate thus far. It still does not convey quite the sense that "monsters" would have done (remember, the original word here was "balrogs"). But neither does it necessarily suggest the ordinary soldiers.

" It still does not convey quite the sense that "monsters" would have done "

to my mind it [forces] has less juvenile associations as well.

I recall flinching at monsters back during the initial proposal as well, though I can't recall if I had a good substitute or not.

__________________

The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

A perfect example of why personal likes and dislikes cannot be the basis of a group effort like ours. I rather like "monsters". Tolkien uses the word elsewhere. Indeed, it's a perfectly respectable word that has, thanks to fantasy's long exile in the realm of children's literature, come to be associated with childish tales. Rather a bit like "Elves".

If it must go in this case, it's because elsewhere it is used with the clear meaning "dragons".

But the point about "forces" not conveying the right meaning has nothing to do with the intermediate "monsters" suggestion. The original was "balrogs" and thus the ambiguity idea is to retain the implication that these may not be just ordinary soldiers (leaving whether they are balrogs, boldogs, trolls, or what have you, unsaid).

But since it appears that there is not word capable of expressing quite that, I lean toward "forces".

A perfect example of why personal likes and dislikes cannot be the basis of a group effort like ours.

Not the basis, but when we must insert words into the text which are not straightforward replacments such as this case, should not the various associations be taken inot account, subjective though they must be?

__________________

The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

True enough. But clearly our subjective associations can vary quite a bit. Actually, wherever possible, we should try to deduce Tolkien's taste with regard to certain words, and base our decisions on his usage. Hence my hesitation to go with something like "horde" which I can't recall him using (though for all I know he used it all over the place and I've merely forgotten).

FG-B-05(04): Yes, I agree to skip monsters in that passage as well.
Anyway, in the original (as I understand it) there is no later contact between the hero’s and these dragon-riding Balrogs at that point. The description of the approaching enemy does contribute to the colouring of the picture of that battle at the gate but not much more. So it doesn't matter so much. But in truth I can't see any good reason for that addition to the text.

I'll have to look back at the texts and discussion to decide what I think we should do about it. I'll do this when I get a chance. Incidentally, I have been looking over the "Beren and Luthien" changes, but it's slow work. I'll post some comments on them as soon as I've got some together. But it may take some time.

Just been reading the Problem of Rog thread, and by coincidence have also been re-reading the Maeglin chapter in HoME 11.

It's pretty obvious that Rog will not do, and the precedent - in JRRT's own words - is set by his handling of "Isfin", "Ecthelion" and "Egalmoth", which is clearly outlined in the commentary to Maeglin 1 and 4.

Now, Ecthelion and Egalmoth were retained, and we have an indication of JRRT's own aesthetics when it comes to names: "These names are also derived from primitive FG, but are well-sounding".

Both Es were used as the names of Ruling Stewards in Gondor, so if replacing the name of Rog is deemed acceptable, going to that source for a replacement may well be appropriate. It does not stretch things too far, and it follows the pattern of certain Ruling Stewards being named after heroes of Gondolin.

I favour Belecthor, if it's not already used. It's in sequence with the 2 Es (only Orodreth comes between) which may strengthen it's case.

Welcome to this slow part of the Downs mhagain!
It is really nice to see someone interested in our project. I would have given you an warm welcome early, but I found it more important to make an elaborate answere to your post, which took some time.

On topic: The problem we have with Rog is exactly that we all feel that Rog might be out of place in the later languages but that we have no hard statement of JRR Tolkien to that fact.
The statements in the "Maeglin" chapter are telling of course, but they do not address Rog. And still it is matter of personal taste if Rog is fitting in later elvish or not. And as long as we have no quote from JRR Tolkien to go with, we can not be sure about Rog.

And even if we had such a statement, as long as we would not have the name actually planed for that character it would be possible within our system of rules that we would consider the change of the name Rog a plan of JRR Tolkien that is not feasible for use due to the lack of information about it (a agree that this would be unlikely in this case).

The idea to chose a replacement name for Rog from the line of the stewards of Gondor is a good one. And I personally would also go in that direction instate of searching a linguistically invention to fit the meaning of Rog in the later language. But here again we get a problem: There are a lot of names of the stewards of Gondor that are not (jet) used in the earlier legends:

How do we chose the right one, and isn't any choice we make a kind of fan-fiction?
A first reduction could be argued by the linguistical evidence:
The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong'.
In the "Etymologies" we find:
"BEL- strong. Cf. BAL(?). Stem not found in Q. T belle (physical) strength; belda strong. Ilk. bel (*belē) strength; Beleg the Strong, name of Ilkorin bowman of Doriath. *bélek, *béleka, ON beleka mighty, huge, great; EN beleg great (n.b. this word is distinct in form from though related to Ilk. name Beleg); cf. EN Beleg-ol [GAWA] = Q Aule; Belegoer Great Sea [AY], name of sea between Middle-earth and the West; Belegost Great City [os], name of one of the chief places of the Dwarves. T belka 'excessive' is possibly from ON; ON belda strong, belle strength (EN belt strong in body, bellas bodily strength) are possibly from T. Cf. name Belthronding of Beleg's yew-bow: see STAR, DING."

Thus a name with the first element of Beleg[c]- is near to the earlier Rog in meaning. But this leaves us still with:
Belegorn and Belecthor

I agree that Belecthor is the more likely since -orn means 'tree' and I can't see any good connection between the character of Rog and a tree (beside his wooden club maybe ). In the "Etymologies" we find for -thor:
"THOR-, THORON- Q soron (and sorne), pl. sorni eagle; N thor and thoron, pl. therein - thoron is properly old gen. sg. = ON thoronen, Q sernen, appearing in names as Cil-thoron, or Cil-thorondor [KIL]. Ilk. thorn, pl. thurin. Q Sorontar (name of) King of Eagles, N Thorondor, Ilk. Thorntor = Torthurnion. [Added:] Cf. name Elthor(o)n = eagle of sky.
[The following was added in hastily above the entry THOR, THORON:
'THOR- = come swooping down; cf. Brilthor. Adj. thôr swooping, leaping down; thórod torrent.' I take this to be an indication of the root-sense of THOR eagle.]“

Thus the second element „-thor“ could be connected to the action Rog did in the battle – swooping down on the Balrogs.

All this is very nice, but does it convince us that we have found the replacement for Rog that JRR Tolkien had in mind? I hesitate to answer this questions with „yes“. At least I would like to hear other minds comment on this.

Aiwendil, you had been most adamant on not changing Rog with an invented name. Does Belecthor suit you more?

Using the name of a steward for Rog is an interesting and novel idea. It's my opinion, though, that this would constitute too major and too arbitrary a change to be justifiable within the scope of our project. If we rename "Rog" as "Belecthor", we are inventing a fact in JRRT's fictional world.

The chief problem with almost any alteration of the name "Rog" is, as I see it, the arbitrariness of any replacement. Even if we had indisputable evidence that "Rog" would have been rejected, we could not replace it unless we had some clear indication of what name Tolkien would have used to replace it. Guesswork, however ingenious, remains guesswork.

So my view remains this: we should either keep "Rog" (as is done in the current version of FoG) or alter the narrative in such a way as to eliminate the name entirely.

Yea, indeed,’ said Voronwë; ‘to a stranger it might seem that pride has made the servants of Turgon pitiless. Long and hard seem the leagues of the Seven Gates to the hungry an wayworn.’

needs to be Changed to

‘Yea, indeed,’ said Voronwë; ‘to a stranger it might seem that pride has made the servants of Turgon pitiless. Long and hard seem the leagues of the Seven Gates to the hungry and wayworn.’

also

Here the hands of the Valar themselves, in ancient wars of the world's beginning, had wrested the great mountains asunder, and the sides of the rift were sheer as if axe-cloven, and they lowered up to heights unguessable.

needs to be Changed to

Here the hands of the Valar themselves, in ancient wars of the world's beginning, had wrested the great mountains asunder, and the sides of the rift were sheer as if axe-cloven, and they towered up to heights unguessable.

anyone care to help me place this text from the silmarillion into my FOG?

Tidings were brought by Thorondor Lord of Eagles of the fall of Nargothrond, and after of the slaying of Thingol and of Dior his heir, and of the ruin of Doriath; but Turgon shut his ear to word of the woes without, and vowed to march never at the side of any son of Fëanor; and his people he forbade ever to pass the leaguer of the hills.

Your second question first: WH means The Wanderings of Húrin the passage you quotted comes from endnote 30 on page 302 in my edition. The reference of the endnote is to Húrins revealing the general place of Gondolin with his speech in Dimbar.

Actuslly your quote from the Sil77 was taken up into our Fog version, if so ut was somewhat changed:

Quote:

FG-M-5.2 <FG Now the years fare by, and egged by Idril Tuor keepeth ever at his secret delving{;}. <Q30 Tidings {Turgon heard of} <QS77 were brought by> {Thorndor}[Thorondor] <QS77 Lord of Eagles of the fall of Nargothrond,> {concerning} <QS77 and after of> the slaying of {Dior, Thingol's heir} <QS77 Thingol and of Dior his heir> {, and thereafter he} <QS77 ; but Turgon> shut his ear to word of the woes without; and he vowed to march never at the side of any son of Fëanor; and his {folk} <QS77 people> he forbade ever to pass the leaguer of the hills> but seeing that the leaguer of spies hath grown thinner Turgon dwelleth more at ease and in less fear.>

This is before Maeglin is lost and after Tuor begins the dellving of the tunnel. I hope that will anable you to find it.

and all the thrall-folk of the Noldoli must dig unceasingly for metals while Morgoth sitteth and deviseth fires and calleth flames and smokes to come from the lower heats, nor doth he suffer any of the Noldor to stray ever a foot from their places of bondage.

Do the enthralled Noldor exist in latter versions of this story? I ask because i don't know not because i think one way or the other.

{Salgant}[Talagant] per “The Eytmologies”. Under the stem ÑGAN-, ÑGÁNAD- ‘play (on stringed instrument)’ which produces various forms meaning ‘Harp’ or ‘harp-playing’, is found:
talagant harper (*tyalañgando), cf. Talagant [>] of Gondolin [TYAL].
Under TYAL- ‘play’ is:
Cf. tyalañgandō = harp-player (Q tyalangan): N Talagand, one of the chiefs of Gondolin (see ÑGAN).
Christopher Tolkien adds a note to ÑGAN-, ÑGÁNAD-:
Talagant appears in literary source, but cf. Salgant in the tale of The Fall of Gondolin, the cowardly but not wholly unattractive lord of the People of the Harp: II. 173, 190-1, etc.
Talgand was almost certainly Tolkien’s planed replacement form for Salgant the lord of the People of the Harp.